JUDGMENT
Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar camp Suratgarh in Criminal Revision No. 36/98 by which he accepted the revision filed by respondent No. 2 to 10 and set aside the order dated 10.11.98 passed by the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in FR No. 326/97 pertaining to FIR No. 521/97 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against respondents No. 2 to 10 on FR No. 326/97 pertaining to FIR No. 521/97 for offence under Sections 148, and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
2. It arises in the following circumstances:
i) For murder do Gorkha Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), a report was lodged by the present petitioner against respondents No.2 to 10 in the Police Station Suratgarh on 13.10.97 stating that respondents No. 2 to 10 had committed murder of the deceased and that report was registered as FIR No. 521/97 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. etc. For murder of the same deceased respondents also lodged a report in the same police station against the present petitioner and some other and that report was registered as FIR No. 522/97.
ii) The police after usual investigation came to the conclusion that the report which was lodged by the present petitioner was found false and police submitted FR No. 326/97, but police submitted challan in FIR No. 522/97 which was lodged by present respondents against the present petitioner Ganga Ram, Jagsir Singh and Nand Ram to committing offence under Sections 302 I.P.C., 307 I.P.C. etc.
3. That when police submitted FR on the report filed by the present petitioner, the present petitioner on 15.10.98 filed a protest petition in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh with a prayer that FR No. 326/97 may not be accepted and cognizance be taken against respondents No. 2 to 10 and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 10.11.98 did not accept the Police FR No. 326/97 pertaining to FIR No. 521/97 and on FIR No. 521/97, learned Magistrate took cognizance against respondents No. 2 to 10 for offence under Sections 302, 147, 149 I.P.C. etc. for murder of the same deceased for which cognizance had already been taken by the Magistrate against the present petitioner and two others in FIR No. 522/97.
4. Aggrieved from the order dated 10.11.98 passed by the learned Magistrate, respondents No. 2 to 10 filed a criminal revision petition No. 36/98 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Sri Ganganagar camp Suratgarh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition filed by the present respondents No. 2 to 10 and set aside the order dated 10.11.98 by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against them inter alia holding that:
For one murder two separate cases were registered and on one FIR police submitted challan and cognizance was taken and since cognizance in taken of the offence and not of offenders and since for murder of deceased, cognizance had already been taken against the present petitioner and two more persons in FIR No. 522/97, therefore, cognizance against respondents No. 2 to 10 cannot be taken.
5. Aggrieved from the judgment dated 16.10.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, this revision petition has been filed by the present petitioner Gangaram who is one of the accused for murder of deceased in FIR No. 522/97.
6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first report (FIR No. 521/97) was lodged by the present petitioner and the report which was lodged by the respondents was false report and in these circumstances, the order of talking cognizance by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was perfectly valid one and hence this revision petition should be allowed.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment passed by the learned Revisional Court does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity, therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. 1 have heard both.
9. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 10.11.98 is illegal and without jurisdiction and the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.10.99 is perfectly correct one and this revision petition should be dismissed as the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are cogent one and valid in law.
10. There is no dispute on the legal proposition that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of offenders and is the present case, since for one murder, cognizance had already been taken by the Court on the report of present respondents, no second cognizance can be taken against respondents No. 2 to 10 for murder of same person. It is, therefore, held that simultaneous cognizance for same offence cannot be taken on the report of a person who is himself one of the accused persons and his report has been found false by the police during investigation.
11. When this being the position when the cognizance for murder of Gorkha Ram had already been taken by the learned Magistrate against the present petitioner and two more persons, therefore, subsequent cognizance taken for the same murder against the respondents No. 2 to 10 on the report of one of the accused Ganga Ram (Present petitioner) is nothing but absolutely illegal and abuse of process of Court. Hence the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct one and does not require any interference by this Court.
For the aforesaid reasons this revision petition dismissed after confirming the judgment dated 16.10.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar camp Suratgarh.